I'd like to add my voice (er, typing...) to agreeing with Psy's stack ideas, too. I wonder if something like this could be modded into Civ4? Maybe not completely because of some SDK limitations, but it might be fun to try...
Are you sticking with civ4?
- Thread starter fathertuck
- Start date
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
I'm sure the method used in Civ1 could be modded into Civ4 no problem. When the defender of an attacker loses, the whole stack dies. I remember spreading my units around in small stacks of 2-3 units because of this. The same concept existed in Civ2 but it was broken because you didn't die in forts and the engineers could build them in a single turn, letting other units move in afterwards.
Not sure what it would do to game balance but it certainly could be built into a mod.
Not sure what it would do to game balance but it certainly could be built into a mod.
Neat! And yes, a mod like this would need to be carefully balanced. Hmmm....
Peregrine
The Swift
I'll be staying w/CIV.
After examining the initial, glowing reviews, looking at the new graphics and features, and, most importantly, reading the critiques (of which there are many) from players on this site primarily (as well as others). . . my decision was not to purchase V.
Played civ II for many years and designed more than a dozen scenarios for it. I didn't purchase or play civ III. I won't buy a bad game.
After examining the initial, glowing reviews, looking at the new graphics and features, and, most importantly, reading the critiques (of which there are many) from players on this site primarily (as well as others). . . my decision was not to purchase V.
Played civ II for many years and designed more than a dozen scenarios for it. I didn't purchase or play civ III. I won't buy a bad game.
Well, I think it should be a no-brainer: field the largest army when going against other large armes; field a large army when going against small detachments. I am not sure how many generals throughout the ages would disagree with these points. There certainly are exceptional situations that might work against this POV, but I would surmise that it is almost a rule of warfare.
My point was that a battalion sized group of soldiers is going to be concentrated enough such that there is a real low marginal utility for the arty for each subsequent increase in number of battalions. Given the scale of the game (which isn't nearly as debatable as the soldiers per unit as it's clear you're meant to be playing on a roughly Earth-sized map), there is no reason multiple units on a single tile would be any more clustered than just one: a single tile could hold ten million people easily without excessive congestion wrt arty effectiveness. My point here is that "area A" is extremely vast and unpopulated by military. Arty strikes are supposed to be fairly concentrated anyway, you're not going to be saying "give me a 1km spread on that arty."
But what a unit represents is very important to this mechanic. And it is explained, in the demo screen. Just because there isn't a text that tells you when you hover over the unit doesn't mean it hasn't been hinted at by the developers what scale they had in mind. You clearly dislike the scale, fine, but I am unconvinced of your take, and as such am unconvinced this is an actual issue. If it is a gameplay issue for you, then certainly mod it to your taste. I offered a few options for that as well, and myself will be adopting a limited UPT when I play for fun to increase tactics a bit more. I do, however, consider "stack attack bonuses" to be a poor approach (and gave reasons by explaining my concept of scale: it would be unrealistic and gamey), and prefer "stack congestion -bonuses" and "UPT limits" to be preferable, and mentioned that both have been implemented in mods before (the latter makes no pretense of realism and just aims straight for game enhancement, the former is at least arguably realistic and scales).
Let's do it! Let's make a modcomp for this very thing.
Has it been done already? I would be happy to help code dive for the mod, but unfortunately I'm not in the best position for compiling DLLs at the moment, so we'd need at least someone who can do that.
How about a system where each unit added to a stack doubles the unit supply cost.
So 1UPT costs 1 gold
2UPT costs 2 gold
3UPT costs 4 gold
4UPT costs 8 gold etc
Unit supply costs would quickly becoming damaging to the economy if you stacked them all on one tile. It would also encourage strategic thought as 2UPT mini stacks would be the most gold efficient strategy, costing the same as if they were on separate tiles.
In addition this could be applied only to units in foreign/neutral territory which would give the defender more of an advantage.
So 1UPT costs 1 gold
2UPT costs 2 gold
3UPT costs 4 gold
4UPT costs 8 gold etc
Unit supply costs would quickly becoming damaging to the economy if you stacked them all on one tile. It would also encourage strategic thought as 2UPT mini stacks would be the most gold efficient strategy, costing the same as if they were on separate tiles.
In addition this could be applied only to units in foreign/neutral territory which would give the defender more of an advantage.
NihilZero
WHEOOHRNY
This is all true, but military history is replete with examples of smaller armies beating larger ones. On the battlefield, organisation, discipline, order, tactics and strategy are of more import than sheer numbers (within reason of course). A disorganised, demoralised and panicked army is more like a herd of stampeding cattle rather than an effective fighting force, and there are also considerations of communication and chain of command involved in wielding a numerical advantage and bringing it to bear effectively - ie, you may have lots of troops, but how many are you able to actually use at once? Are you enveloping the enemy, or are they running rings around you?
Now, I'm not sure that any of this can or should be implemented in Civ, which as I said before is a game of grand strategy and empire management, rather than tactics. In general, games which allow the human player to tactically outwit a poor old AI, whilst seeming like a nice concept, are not especially satisfying in practice simply because it's impossible to write AIs that understand the teachings of SunTzu and Clausewitz.
Psyringe
Scout
And here was I thinking that we'd closed this case already ... 
Okay, here we go:
1. Is a realistic, contingent scale hidden in the game's data?
I don't believe that the scale (which you claim to be present in Civ4) actually exists in this form. You claim that the "soldiers" factor used for different unit types, as they are used under the hood for the calculations in the demographics screen, are actually hidden "hints of the developers". The problem is that the numbers just don't hold up.
In this hidden scale, a caravel is worth 3,000 soldiers in the demographics screen. Now caravels during the age of discovery usually had a complement of about 20 men, so by your assumption that these metrics make sense, 1 caravel unit built in the game would represent about 150 caravels in the real world. This means that when I send a caravel unit out to look for a new continent, I'm "really" sending a fleet of 150 ships. That's a bit odd considering that Columbus only needed two caravels and a single carrack.
A submarine, according to this hidden scale, is worth 30,000 soldiers. The most popular German U-boat in WW2, the Type VII, had a complement of about 50 men, so let's say that one submarine unit in Civ4 equals about 600 vessels. That's already pretty close to the total number of Type VIIs involved in the complete war (about 770), and it's about half of the number of all German submarines of all types involved in the war. Again, this is a single unit in Civ.
An ICBM, according to the scale, is worth 40,000 soldiers. Now it becomes really tricky because, well, where are 40,000 soldiers near an ICBM? Missile base personnel? No, actually these 40,000 men must be crammed somewhere inside the missile, because when I detonate it, they go away.
I might add that for the same calculations in the demographics screen, each factory is worth 2,000 soldiers, each levee is worth 2,000 soldiers as well, and Cristo Redentor somehow has 10,000 soldiers hidden behind his back (as have the Moai Statues).
Given these numbers, I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that these represent a contingent scale, hidden in the code by the developers. Even if they may have done some research in that area (I wouldn't totally exclude it), I'd say that associating 40,000 soldiers with an ICBM and 10,000 with Cristo Redentor is a clear indication that at least some other factors contributed to these numbers as well, and there's a good chance that there wasn't even a truly "realistic" scale to begin with.
I don't see a good basis for the second premise of your theory either, i.e. that the game is "clearly meant to be played on an Earth-sized map". Given that the game can be played on a variety of map sizes I don't see how such a case can be made.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see that the contingent scale that you try to preserve is actually there.
2. Should there be such a scale?
That's a different question. Arguably, even if such a scale isn't really present in Civ4, it might be worthwhile to create one and/or make sure that any proposed additions and rules changes adhere to one. However, I have to admit that I don't really see the merit here. I don't think that it's feasible, or even worthwhile, for a game on such a grand scale to try to mimick Earth history to such minute degrees. I don't see what it would add to the enjoyment of playing it, while I can see how stack counters could add to the enjoyment by increasing the strategical depth of the fame. However, I do realize that if such a scale is important for you, then the suggestion I made may not be very attractive for you. That's fine as far as I'm concerned, as different people obviously want different things from the game.
In that vein, for what I want from the game, the whole scale you propose and the whole discussion in the first section of this post is actually rather irrelevant. I was checking out ways to increase the tactical options in the game by adding counters for a game mechanic that (apparently) many people see as overpowered. I clearly came from a "game design" angle, not from a "real history simulation" one. Now if someone asks me what a real-world representation of a proposed game mechanic might be, I can come up with some, and I listed some which, in my opinion, did the job well enough. However, the question itself still isn't very relevant to me. If I wanted a totally and unquestionably accurate simulation of historical warfare, then I wouldn't play a game that sends catapults on kamikaze runs against fortified defenders, would I?
3. Other ways to limit stacks
As I said in my previous posts, I think that there are many possible ways to limit the power of stacks - I mentioned some myself, you mentioned two more (thanks for that). Personally, I don't think that limiting the number of units per stack to a hard cap is going to improve the situation, because in all games that employed such a mechanic, I've seen players build "killer combos" of stacks which had all available slots filled and which were then nearly unbeatable for the AI (because the AI, with all its production bonuses, leans heavily toward a "strength by numbers" approach, which is crippled if it's impossible to field a larger stack than the player). The problem I see with "stack congestion" is that it's a mechanic that punishes an otherwise optimal behavior rather than countering it. In game design, this is usually not an optimal solution, since there's a good chance that players will feel restricted rather than challenged (which in turn leads to less enjoyment). On the other hand, for a mod that people choose voluntarily, that might not be that much of a factor.
Anyway, I'm not claiming that I know the only solution. Actually, as I said, I believe that there are many ways to limit the power of stacks if one wants to. Obviously, some will meet (or fail to meet) the preferences of different groups of players. It's become pretty obvious that the counter-mechanic suggestion I made doesn't meet yours because it collides with your impression of scale in Civ. That's okay. I wouldn't call a suggestion "poor" though, if it accomplishes what it was designed for (which I'm fairly sure my suggestion would do) but just doesn't cater to my vision of the game and how it should be.
Okay, here we go:1. Is a realistic, contingent scale hidden in the game's data?
I don't believe that the scale (which you claim to be present in Civ4) actually exists in this form. You claim that the "soldiers" factor used for different unit types, as they are used under the hood for the calculations in the demographics screen, are actually hidden "hints of the developers". The problem is that the numbers just don't hold up.
In this hidden scale, a caravel is worth 3,000 soldiers in the demographics screen. Now caravels during the age of discovery usually had a complement of about 20 men, so by your assumption that these metrics make sense, 1 caravel unit built in the game would represent about 150 caravels in the real world. This means that when I send a caravel unit out to look for a new continent, I'm "really" sending a fleet of 150 ships. That's a bit odd considering that Columbus only needed two caravels and a single carrack.
A submarine, according to this hidden scale, is worth 30,000 soldiers. The most popular German U-boat in WW2, the Type VII, had a complement of about 50 men, so let's say that one submarine unit in Civ4 equals about 600 vessels. That's already pretty close to the total number of Type VIIs involved in the complete war (about 770), and it's about half of the number of all German submarines of all types involved in the war. Again, this is a single unit in Civ.
An ICBM, according to the scale, is worth 40,000 soldiers. Now it becomes really tricky because, well, where are 40,000 soldiers near an ICBM? Missile base personnel? No, actually these 40,000 men must be crammed somewhere inside the missile, because when I detonate it, they go away.
I might add that for the same calculations in the demographics screen, each factory is worth 2,000 soldiers, each levee is worth 2,000 soldiers as well, and Cristo Redentor somehow has 10,000 soldiers hidden behind his back (as have the Moai Statues).
Given these numbers, I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that these represent a contingent scale, hidden in the code by the developers. Even if they may have done some research in that area (I wouldn't totally exclude it), I'd say that associating 40,000 soldiers with an ICBM and 10,000 with Cristo Redentor is a clear indication that at least some other factors contributed to these numbers as well, and there's a good chance that there wasn't even a truly "realistic" scale to begin with.
I don't see a good basis for the second premise of your theory either, i.e. that the game is "clearly meant to be played on an Earth-sized map". Given that the game can be played on a variety of map sizes I don't see how such a case can be made.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see that the contingent scale that you try to preserve is actually there.
2. Should there be such a scale?
That's a different question. Arguably, even if such a scale isn't really present in Civ4, it might be worthwhile to create one and/or make sure that any proposed additions and rules changes adhere to one. However, I have to admit that I don't really see the merit here. I don't think that it's feasible, or even worthwhile, for a game on such a grand scale to try to mimick Earth history to such minute degrees. I don't see what it would add to the enjoyment of playing it, while I can see how stack counters could add to the enjoyment by increasing the strategical depth of the fame. However, I do realize that if such a scale is important for you, then the suggestion I made may not be very attractive for you. That's fine as far as I'm concerned, as different people obviously want different things from the game.
In that vein, for what I want from the game, the whole scale you propose and the whole discussion in the first section of this post is actually rather irrelevant. I was checking out ways to increase the tactical options in the game by adding counters for a game mechanic that (apparently) many people see as overpowered. I clearly came from a "game design" angle, not from a "real history simulation" one. Now if someone asks me what a real-world representation of a proposed game mechanic might be, I can come up with some, and I listed some which, in my opinion, did the job well enough. However, the question itself still isn't very relevant to me. If I wanted a totally and unquestionably accurate simulation of historical warfare, then I wouldn't play a game that sends catapults on kamikaze runs against fortified defenders, would I?
3. Other ways to limit stacks
As I said in my previous posts, I think that there are many possible ways to limit the power of stacks - I mentioned some myself, you mentioned two more (thanks for that). Personally, I don't think that limiting the number of units per stack to a hard cap is going to improve the situation, because in all games that employed such a mechanic, I've seen players build "killer combos" of stacks which had all available slots filled and which were then nearly unbeatable for the AI (because the AI, with all its production bonuses, leans heavily toward a "strength by numbers" approach, which is crippled if it's impossible to field a larger stack than the player). The problem I see with "stack congestion" is that it's a mechanic that punishes an otherwise optimal behavior rather than countering it. In game design, this is usually not an optimal solution, since there's a good chance that players will feel restricted rather than challenged (which in turn leads to less enjoyment). On the other hand, for a mod that people choose voluntarily, that might not be that much of a factor.
Anyway, I'm not claiming that I know the only solution. Actually, as I said, I believe that there are many ways to limit the power of stacks if one wants to. Obviously, some will meet (or fail to meet) the preferences of different groups of players. It's become pretty obvious that the counter-mechanic suggestion I made doesn't meet yours because it collides with your impression of scale in Civ. That's okay. I wouldn't call a suggestion "poor" though, if it accomplishes what it was designed for (which I'm fairly sure my suggestion would do) but just doesn't cater to my vision of the game and how it should be.
May Day 10
Prince
^^^ very intelligent post.
To get back on topic (interesting discussion by the way!), I've been playing Civ 4 for a few years and am sticking with it for 2 reasons:
1) Steam - I'm running on Linux, and while Steam does run using Wine, about half a year ago they changed the GUI in a patch. Since that day I've been unable to run any games properly under Steam, they are all extremely laggy. And yes, I know Linux was never supported anyway
2) Reading the Civ 5 forum and all the complaints I have no wish to even try the game.....
I still have a lot of fun playing Civ 4 and often stay up faaar too long for "just one more turn!". I don't see why I should abandon it now just because a newer version has been released.
1) Steam - I'm running on Linux, and while Steam does run using Wine, about half a year ago they changed the GUI in a patch. Since that day I've been unable to run any games properly under Steam, they are all extremely laggy. And yes, I know Linux was never supported anyway
2) Reading the Civ 5 forum and all the complaints I have no wish to even try the game.....
I still have a lot of fun playing Civ 4 and often stay up faaar too long for "just one more turn!". I don't see why I should abandon it now just because a newer version has been released.
First, to respond to Nihil: all else being equal, numbers confer an advantage, absolute numbers an absolute advantage. Disagree or agree? I understand that limiting UPT would give tactics more importance, which would, as is always the case when a human goes against an AI in a strat game, benefit the player, as even the poorer human opponents are a Sun Tzu to Civ's AI.
Now, on to the main debate:
Obviously, the devs had to give "soldier" values to non-numbers-based units and buildings in order for the game mechanic to work wrt AI behavior, as a way to symbolize a player/AI's threat level, ability to construct armies, and some sort of army strength (you don't want to fight a large military, but you also don't want to fight a 'sleeping giant' powerhouse with a small one). The point is that they didn't start at "1 soldier" or "10 soldiers", but at "1000 soldiers" to "2000 soldiers". You'll not that all "soldiers" modifiers are in multiples of 1000. It could just as easily have been 1, 2, 3, 14, etc, or 100, 200, etc. Historically, you get groupings in hundreds and thousands, at which point your artillery issue becomes moot. I do think they did that as an indication of scale, and besides that scale makes the most sense given the scale of the game.
What makes you think the current level of AI is going to be effective with stack counters? They barely make siege (the current SOD counter) as is, and they tend to use it very poorly at that. Giving them a special-purpose unit is just going to make them even less effective probably, but it will benefit the player a ton, as a player is going to be far more effective with special-purpose units than the AI. The more specialized something is in a complex situation, the more of an advantage it gives to the human. The same issue you had over UPT being exploited by humans is going to exist with this counter approach.
The real solution is to make combat simpler so that strength by numbers are more effective, but that's not fun.
Now, on to the main debate:
Obviously, the devs had to give "soldier" values to non-numbers-based units and buildings in order for the game mechanic to work wrt AI behavior, as a way to symbolize a player/AI's threat level, ability to construct armies, and some sort of army strength (you don't want to fight a large military, but you also don't want to fight a 'sleeping giant' powerhouse with a small one). The point is that they didn't start at "1 soldier" or "10 soldiers", but at "1000 soldiers" to "2000 soldiers". You'll not that all "soldiers" modifiers are in multiples of 1000. It could just as easily have been 1, 2, 3, 14, etc, or 100, 200, etc. Historically, you get groupings in hundreds and thousands, at which point your artillery issue becomes moot. I do think they did that as an indication of scale, and besides that scale makes the most sense given the scale of the game.
What makes you think the current level of AI is going to be effective with stack counters? They barely make siege (the current SOD counter) as is, and they tend to use it very poorly at that. Giving them a special-purpose unit is just going to make them even less effective probably, but it will benefit the player a ton, as a player is going to be far more effective with special-purpose units than the AI. The more specialized something is in a complex situation, the more of an advantage it gives to the human. The same issue you had over UPT being exploited by humans is going to exist with this counter approach.
The real solution is to make combat simpler so that strength by numbers are more effective, but that's not fun.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Maybe they could do flanking similar to civ V, where if you have a unit on a tile adjacent to a stack any attackers get a small bonus.
Psyringe
Scout
Regarding the "hidden scale" issue: DNK, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Neither of us is going to convince the other. I think we both presented well-formed arguments, but the data (the soldier values of the units) is sufficiently vague to permit both perspectives. Neither of us can prove his position, we're both making assumptions about what the devs may or may not have thought when they implemented the demographics. In the end, someone who wants to see this scale as something important will find some plausible reasons for interpreting it the way you do, while someone who doesn't care that much about such a scale will find enough holes in it to dismiss the premise. Hence, I think "agree to disagree" is probably the most constructive course of action. Deal? 
Yep, the RoM:AND mod implements this, though I'm not sure whether the AI can handle it. Conceptually I think it's a sound idea, especially because it gives the player an incentive to split stacks rather than restricting him from building them. For a player's enjoyment, it often makes a difference whether he's thinking "Why doesn't the game let me send five units of cavalry into these plains, it doesn't make sense, the area is big enough", or "Hey, if I don't send all my cavalry into the same area, but put two on this tile and three here, then they'll get a combat advantage." The in-game effect is the same, but the second way usually feels more enjoyable.
Keep in mind that I was talking about things that Firaxis decided (or dismissed) when designing Civ5. Meaning I was talking from the perspective of a company who fund can an AI dev team for several years, so the potential to teach the AI some effective counter mechanisms would be there. I do think that some of the suggested counters mentioned in this thread would be easier to grasp for an AI than Civ5's 1upt logistics and combat. But I agree that anything that's making SoDs less of a no-brainer is going to need a substantial amount of work to enable the AI to use it sufficiently well. Actually I tend to speculate that the Civ4 development was quite aware of the power of SoDs and of at least some ways to limit it, but refrained from implementing them in favor of a stronger AI. In which case the development of the next game would have been a good opportunity to teach the AI these the things that were out of scope during Civ4's development.
Yep, the RoM:AND mod implements this, though I'm not sure whether the AI can handle it. Conceptually I think it's a sound idea, especially because it gives the player an incentive to split stacks rather than restricting him from building them. For a player's enjoyment, it often makes a difference whether he's thinking "Why doesn't the game let me send five units of cavalry into these plains, it doesn't make sense, the area is big enough", or "Hey, if I don't send all my cavalry into the same area, but put two on this tile and three here, then they'll get a combat advantage." The in-game effect is the same, but the second way usually feels more enjoyable.
I'm totally in! School is a bit busy for me ATM, but I'll be glad to help when and where I can.Let's do it! Let's make a modcomp for this very thing.
Has it been done already? I would be happy to help code dive for the mod, but unfortunately I'm not in the best position for compiling DLLs at the moment, so we'd need at least someone who can do that.
About the topic: yes, I'm sticking with IV.
I have both games, and I think Civ V is good. I don't have any real issues with it, and I don't agree it's simplified like everyone says. Also, my game never crashed, not a single time. I like the differences as well, I like change, I didn't want just a Civilization 4.5. So, what's the problem? The game is too SLOW. The 1UPT thing is interesting, but now you have to give your units orders one by one, and that gets really tedious. Also, the wait between turns takes forever, and I'm not that patient.
Usually a Civ IV game don't take me more than 4 hours on normal speed. In Civ V, a fast speed game took me around 8 hours, and that's not good (for me). So I'm sticking with Civ IV BTS (not that I would stop playing it. I planned to play both games)
On a side note, Civ V doesn't feel that big, I mean, a standard sized continents map doesn't feels like a whole world but instead just two big islands somewhere in the Pacific. Or maybe that's just me.
I have both games, and I think Civ V is good. I don't have any real issues with it, and I don't agree it's simplified like everyone says. Also, my game never crashed, not a single time. I like the differences as well, I like change, I didn't want just a Civilization 4.5. So, what's the problem? The game is too SLOW. The 1UPT thing is interesting, but now you have to give your units orders one by one, and that gets really tedious. Also, the wait between turns takes forever, and I'm not that patient.
Usually a Civ IV game don't take me more than 4 hours on normal speed. In Civ V, a fast speed game took me around 8 hours, and that's not good (for me). So I'm sticking with Civ IV BTS (not that I would stop playing it. I planned to play both games)
On a side note, Civ V doesn't feel that big, I mean, a standard sized continents map doesn't feels like a whole world but instead just two big islands somewhere in the Pacific. Or maybe that's just me.
May Day 10
Prince
I havent touched Civ V since September 23. It just bores me. Still like Civ IV a lot.
Pangaea
Rock N Roller
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,390
I only tried the demo, but that was enough. Hadn't played it for several weeks, so uninstalled Steam yesterday. Don't want pish like that on my computer. Maybe Civ 5 will be a real Civ game in two years. Perhaps I will buy it then. Though Steam will be a real pain if not solved by then.
Countmonte8242
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 180
This is exactly what I thought they should have done with Civ 5 instead of 1 UPT having now played it. 1 UPT is a failure, and you're right, Civ 1's system made you spread units around tiles a bit more.
Might be cool if somebody could mod it into Civ IV, but the real problem with it would be reprogramming the AI to spread its own units around in order to not get burned by the rule change.
Similar threads
- Sticky
